'GPL encumbrance problems'

[Mike McCarty]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 06:15, Andy Green wrote:
> 
> 
>>>What I don't really understand is how you go *poof* out of the market
>>>when you sell gadgets that need a open source driver ? People still
>>>would have to by the gadget, wouldn't they ? 
>>
>>The worry is that when much of what makes the gadget innovative is tied
>>up in the code that must be opened, people will indeed still buy the
>>gadget, but perhaps not from the original author of the opened code...
> 
> 
> Or, the gadget depends on code already written and under another
> license.  The GPL is all-or-nothing in this regard so if any
> component (with some interpretation of components...) needs
> a non-GPL license, none can have it.  Personally I think this
> is indefensibly anti-competitive. Imagine if Microsoft said
> that if you used any 3rd party DLLs along with their code
> the 3rd party code suddenly become controlled by Microsoft's
> license.  I'm not a lawyer, and even if I were I wouldn't risk
> a business on that interpretation, but there is just something
> wrong with the concept that you can't combine different products
> to add value.

Thank you, Les. I have tried to say this a few times in this
thread, but you have hit it right on the head.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!